I am currently working on code that is using dynamic-linq, I ran into a problem when using a List<BaseClass>, where the list actually contains a list of the Person Class.
When I execute the following code I get a ParseException:
var list = new List<BaseClass>();
list.Add(new Person
{
FirstName = "Joe",
Surname = "Bloggs"
});
list.Where("FirstName == #0", "Joe");
And the Exception:
Please see BaseClass below:
public class BaseClass
{
public int Id { get; set; }
}
And the Person class:
public class Person : BaseClass
{
public string FirstName { get; set; }
public string Surname { get; set; }
}
I can overcome the error by implementing the following code:
var list = new List<BaseClass>();
list.Add(new Person
{
FirstName = "Joe",
Surname = "Bloggs"
});
var newList = CreateListOfCorrectType<BaseClass>(list);
newList.Where("FirstName == #0", "Joe");
Please see CreateListOfCorrectType<T> method below:
private IList CreateListOfCorrectType<T>(
List<T> list)
{
if (list.Count == 0)
{
return list;
}
var typeInfo = list.FirstOrDefault().GetType();
var correctListType = typeof(List<>).MakeGenericType(typeInfo.UnderlyingSystemType);
var listOfCorrectType = (Activator.CreateInstance(correctListType)) as IList;
list.ForEach(x => listOfCorrectType.Add(x));
return listOfCorrectType;
}
My Question is if using the CreateListOfCorrectType is the best way of overcoming the issue? and if not what alternatives do I have in getting the List<BaseClass> to the correct Type.
I am looking to use this with existing code, and changing the existing List<>types are not possible. And the CreateListOfCorrectType method is not aware of the Person class.
Please note that class names and variables are for demonstrative purposes only.
UPDATE
Optimist's answer below leaded me to the solution for my issue, please see extension method used below:
public static IList ToDerivedListType(this IList list)
{
if (list == null || list.Count == 0)
{
return list;
}
var type = list.Cast<object>().FirstOrDefault().GetType();
var castedList = typeof(Enumerable).GetMethod("Cast", System.Reflection.BindingFlags.Static | System.Reflection.BindingFlags.Public)
.MakeGenericMethod(type)
.Invoke(null, new[] { list });
return typeof(Enumerable).GetMethod("ToList", System.Reflection.BindingFlags.Static | System.Reflection.BindingFlags.Public)
.MakeGenericMethod(type)
.Invoke(null, new[] { castedList }) as IList;
}
System.Linq.Enumerable.Cast and MakeGenericMethod was the key.
How about using the OfType linq method:
list.OfType<Person>().Where("FirstName == #0", "Joe");
See https://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/library/vstudio/bb360913(v=vs.100).aspx
depending on the actual use cases, some things can be improved:
runtime expenses: the CreateListOfCorrectType function copies all elements into a new collection which results in unnecessary expense in case only a subset is taken out of the returned collection .
scope of applicability of the mapping function: this could be widened to work with IEnumerable.
finally, both the mapping and the filtering function can be combined into one to reduce the amount of code in consuming functions.
System.Linq.Enumerable.Cast and MakeGenericMethod can be employed to achieve that:
static public class Extension
{
static public IEnumerable CastDynamic(this IEnumerable Source, Type Type)
{
return
(IEnumerable)
typeof(Enumerable)
.GetMethod("Cast", System.Reflection.BindingFlags.Static | System.Reflection.BindingFlags.Public)
.MakeGenericMethod(Type)
.Invoke(null, new[] { Source });
}
static public IEnumerable CastToFirstType(this IEnumerable Source)
{
if (0 == Source.Take(1).Count())
{
return Source;
}
return CastDynamic(Source, Source.Cast<object>().FirstOrDefault().GetType());
}
static public IEnumerable WhereCastToFirstType(this IEnumerable Source, string Predicate, params object[] values)
{
return Source.CastToFirstType().Where(Predicate, values);
}
}
If tried to mimic the function you showed in terms of exceptions thrown. There is a difference because the casting is done after the mapping function returns.
Right, so I have an enumerable and wish to get distinct values from it.
Using System.Linq, there's, of course, an extension method called Distinct. In the simple case, it can be used with no parameters, like:
var distinctValues = myStringList.Distinct();
Well and good, but if I have an enumerable of objects for which I need to specify equality, the only available overload is:
var distinctValues = myCustomerList.Distinct(someEqualityComparer);
The equality comparer argument must be an instance of IEqualityComparer<T>. I can do this, of course, but it's somewhat verbose and, well, cludgy.
What I would have expected is an overload that would take a lambda, say a Func<T, T, bool>:
var distinctValues = myCustomerList.Distinct((c1, c2) => c1.CustomerId == c2.CustomerId);
Anyone know if some such extension exists, or some equivalent workaround? Or am I missing something?
Alternatively, is there a way of specifying an IEqualityComparer inline (embarrass me)?
Update
I found a reply by Anders Hejlsberg to a post in an MSDN forum on this subject. He says:
The problem you're going to run into is that when two objects compare
equal they must have the same GetHashCode return value (or else the
hash table used internally by Distinct will not function correctly).
We use IEqualityComparer because it packages compatible
implementations of Equals and GetHashCode into a single interface.
I suppose that makes sense.
IEnumerable<Customer> filteredList = originalList
.GroupBy(customer => customer.CustomerId)
.Select(group => group.First());
It looks to me like you want DistinctBy from MoreLINQ. You can then write:
var distinctValues = myCustomerList.DistinctBy(c => c.CustomerId);
Here's a cut-down version of DistinctBy (no nullity checking and no option to specify your own key comparer):
public static IEnumerable<TSource> DistinctBy<TSource, TKey>
(this IEnumerable<TSource> source, Func<TSource, TKey> keySelector)
{
HashSet<TKey> knownKeys = new HashSet<TKey>();
foreach (TSource element in source)
{
if (knownKeys.Add(keySelector(element)))
{
yield return element;
}
}
}
To Wrap things up . I think most of the people which came here like me want the simplest solution possible without using any libraries and with best possible performance.
(The accepted group by method for me i think is an overkill in terms of performance. )
Here is a simple extension method using the IEqualityComparer interface which works also for null values.
Usage:
var filtered = taskList.DistinctBy(t => t.TaskExternalId).ToArray();
Extension Method Code
public static class LinqExtensions
{
public static IEnumerable<T> DistinctBy<T, TKey>(this IEnumerable<T> items, Func<T, TKey> property)
{
GeneralPropertyComparer<T, TKey> comparer = new GeneralPropertyComparer<T,TKey>(property);
return items.Distinct(comparer);
}
}
public class GeneralPropertyComparer<T,TKey> : IEqualityComparer<T>
{
private Func<T, TKey> expr { get; set; }
public GeneralPropertyComparer (Func<T, TKey> expr)
{
this.expr = expr;
}
public bool Equals(T left, T right)
{
var leftProp = expr.Invoke(left);
var rightProp = expr.Invoke(right);
if (leftProp == null && rightProp == null)
return true;
else if (leftProp == null ^ rightProp == null)
return false;
else
return leftProp.Equals(rightProp);
}
public int GetHashCode(T obj)
{
var prop = expr.Invoke(obj);
return (prop==null)? 0:prop.GetHashCode();
}
}
Shorthand solution
myCustomerList.GroupBy(c => c.CustomerId, (key, c) => c.FirstOrDefault());
No there is no such extension method overload for this. I've found this frustrating myself in the past and as such I usually write a helper class to deal with this problem. The goal is to convert a Func<T,T,bool> to IEqualityComparer<T,T>.
Example
public class EqualityFactory {
private sealed class Impl<T> : IEqualityComparer<T,T> {
private Func<T,T,bool> m_del;
private IEqualityComparer<T> m_comp;
public Impl(Func<T,T,bool> del) {
m_del = del;
m_comp = EqualityComparer<T>.Default;
}
public bool Equals(T left, T right) {
return m_del(left, right);
}
public int GetHashCode(T value) {
return m_comp.GetHashCode(value);
}
}
public static IEqualityComparer<T,T> Create<T>(Func<T,T,bool> del) {
return new Impl<T>(del);
}
}
This allows you to write the following
var distinctValues = myCustomerList
.Distinct(EqualityFactory.Create((c1, c2) => c1.CustomerId == c2.CustomerId));
Here's a simple extension method that does what I need...
public static class EnumerableExtensions
{
public static IEnumerable<TKey> Distinct<T, TKey>(this IEnumerable<T> source, Func<T, TKey> selector)
{
return source.GroupBy(selector).Select(x => x.Key);
}
}
It's a shame they didn't bake a distinct method like this into the framework, but hey ho.
This will do what you want but I don't know about performance:
var distinctValues =
from cust in myCustomerList
group cust by cust.CustomerId
into gcust
select gcust.First();
At least it's not verbose.
From .NET 6 or later, there is a new build-in method Enumerable.DistinctBy to achieve this.
var distinctValues = myCustomerList.DistinctBy(c => c.CustomerId);
// With IEqualityComparer
var distinctValues = myCustomerList.DistinctBy(c => c.CustomerId, someEqualityComparer);
Something I have used which worked well for me.
/// <summary>
/// A class to wrap the IEqualityComparer interface into matching functions for simple implementation
/// </summary>
/// <typeparam name="T">The type of object to be compared</typeparam>
public class MyIEqualityComparer<T> : IEqualityComparer<T>
{
/// <summary>
/// Create a new comparer based on the given Equals and GetHashCode methods
/// </summary>
/// <param name="equals">The method to compute equals of two T instances</param>
/// <param name="getHashCode">The method to compute a hashcode for a T instance</param>
public MyIEqualityComparer(Func<T, T, bool> equals, Func<T, int> getHashCode)
{
if (equals == null)
throw new ArgumentNullException("equals", "Equals parameter is required for all MyIEqualityComparer instances");
EqualsMethod = equals;
GetHashCodeMethod = getHashCode;
}
/// <summary>
/// Gets the method used to compute equals
/// </summary>
public Func<T, T, bool> EqualsMethod { get; private set; }
/// <summary>
/// Gets the method used to compute a hash code
/// </summary>
public Func<T, int> GetHashCodeMethod { get; private set; }
bool IEqualityComparer<T>.Equals(T x, T y)
{
return EqualsMethod(x, y);
}
int IEqualityComparer<T>.GetHashCode(T obj)
{
if (GetHashCodeMethod == null)
return obj.GetHashCode();
return GetHashCodeMethod(obj);
}
}
All solutions I've seen here rely on selecting an already comparable field. If one needs to compare in a different way, though, this solution here seems to work generally, for something like:
somedoubles.Distinct(new LambdaComparer<double>((x, y) => Math.Abs(x - y) < double.Epsilon)).Count()
Take another way:
var distinctValues = myCustomerList.
Select(x => x._myCaustomerProperty).Distinct();
The sequence return distinct elements compare them by property '_myCaustomerProperty' .
You can use LambdaEqualityComparer:
var distinctValues
= myCustomerList.Distinct(new LambdaEqualityComparer<OurType>((c1, c2) => c1.CustomerId == c2.CustomerId));
public class LambdaEqualityComparer<T> : IEqualityComparer<T>
{
public LambdaEqualityComparer(Func<T, T, bool> equalsFunction)
{
_equalsFunction = equalsFunction;
}
public bool Equals(T x, T y)
{
return _equalsFunction(x, y);
}
public int GetHashCode(T obj)
{
return obj.GetHashCode();
}
private readonly Func<T, T, bool> _equalsFunction;
}
You can use InlineComparer
public class InlineComparer<T> : IEqualityComparer<T>
{
//private readonly Func<T, T, bool> equalsMethod;
//private readonly Func<T, int> getHashCodeMethod;
public Func<T, T, bool> EqualsMethod { get; private set; }
public Func<T, int> GetHashCodeMethod { get; private set; }
public InlineComparer(Func<T, T, bool> equals, Func<T, int> hashCode)
{
if (equals == null) throw new ArgumentNullException("equals", "Equals parameter is required for all InlineComparer instances");
EqualsMethod = equals;
GetHashCodeMethod = hashCode;
}
public bool Equals(T x, T y)
{
return EqualsMethod(x, y);
}
public int GetHashCode(T obj)
{
if (GetHashCodeMethod == null) return obj.GetHashCode();
return GetHashCodeMethod(obj);
}
}
Usage sample:
var comparer = new InlineComparer<DetalleLog>((i1, i2) => i1.PeticionEV == i2.PeticionEV && i1.Etiqueta == i2.Etiqueta, i => i.PeticionEV.GetHashCode() + i.Etiqueta.GetHashCode());
var peticionesEV = listaLogs.Distinct(comparer).ToList();
Assert.IsNotNull(peticionesEV);
Assert.AreNotEqual(0, peticionesEV.Count);
Source:
https://stackoverflow.com/a/5969691/206730
Using IEqualityComparer for Union
Can I specify my explicit type comparator inline?
If Distinct() doesn't produce unique results, try this one:
var filteredWC = tblWorkCenter.GroupBy(cc => cc.WCID_I).Select(grp => grp.First()).Select(cc => new Model.WorkCenter { WCID = cc.WCID_I }).OrderBy(cc => cc.WCID);
ObservableCollection<Model.WorkCenter> WorkCenter = new ObservableCollection<Model.WorkCenter>(filteredWC);
A tricky way to do this is use Aggregate() extension, using a dictionary as accumulator with the key-property values as keys:
var customers = new List<Customer>();
var distincts = customers.Aggregate(new Dictionary<int, Customer>(),
(d, e) => { d[e.CustomerId] = e; return d; },
d => d.Values);
And a GroupBy-style solution is using ToLookup():
var distincts = customers.ToLookup(c => c.CustomerId).Select(g => g.First());
IEnumerable lambda extension:
public static class ListExtensions
{
public static IEnumerable<T> Distinct<T>(this IEnumerable<T> list, Func<T, int> hashCode)
{
Dictionary<int, T> hashCodeDic = new Dictionary<int, T>();
list.ToList().ForEach(t =>
{
var key = hashCode(t);
if (!hashCodeDic.ContainsKey(key))
hashCodeDic.Add(key, t);
});
return hashCodeDic.Select(kvp => kvp.Value);
}
}
Usage:
class Employee
{
public string Name { get; set; }
public int EmployeeID { get; set; }
}
//Add 5 employees to List
List<Employee> lst = new List<Employee>();
Employee e = new Employee { Name = "Shantanu", EmployeeID = 123456 };
lst.Add(e);
lst.Add(e);
Employee e1 = new Employee { Name = "Adam Warren", EmployeeID = 823456 };
lst.Add(e1);
//Add a space in the Name
Employee e2 = new Employee { Name = "Adam Warren", EmployeeID = 823456 };
lst.Add(e2);
//Name is different case
Employee e3 = new Employee { Name = "adam warren", EmployeeID = 823456 };
lst.Add(e3);
//Distinct (without IEqalityComparer<T>) - Returns 4 employees
var lstDistinct1 = lst.Distinct();
//Lambda Extension - Return 2 employees
var lstDistinct = lst.Distinct(employee => employee.EmployeeID.GetHashCode() ^ employee.Name.ToUpper().Replace(" ", "").GetHashCode());
The Microsoft System.Interactive package has a version of Distinct that takes a key selector lambda. This is effectively the same as Jon Skeet's solution, but it may be helpful for people to know, and to check out the rest of the library.
Here's how you can do it:
public static class Extensions
{
public static IEnumerable<T> MyDistinct<T, V>(this IEnumerable<T> query,
Func<T, V> f,
Func<IGrouping<V,T>,T> h=null)
{
if (h==null) h=(x => x.First());
return query.GroupBy(f).Select(h);
}
}
This method allows you to use it by specifying one parameter like .MyDistinct(d => d.Name), but it also allows you to specify a having condition as a second parameter like so:
var myQuery = (from x in _myObject select x).MyDistinct(d => d.Name,
x => x.FirstOrDefault(y=>y.Name.Contains("1") || y.Name.Contains("2"))
);
N.B. This would also allow you to specify other functions like for example .LastOrDefault(...) as well.
If you want to expose just the condition, you can have it even simpler by implementing it as:
public static IEnumerable<T> MyDistinct2<T, V>(this IEnumerable<T> query,
Func<T, V> f,
Func<T,bool> h=null
)
{
if (h == null) h = (y => true);
return query.GroupBy(f).Select(x=>x.FirstOrDefault(h));
}
In this case, the query would just look like:
var myQuery2 = (from x in _myObject select x).MyDistinct2(d => d.Name,
y => y.Name.Contains("1") || y.Name.Contains("2")
);
N.B. Here, the expression is simpler, but note .MyDistinct2 uses .FirstOrDefault(...) implicitly.
Note: The examples above are using the following demo class
class MyObject
{
public string Name;
public string Code;
}
private MyObject[] _myObject = {
new MyObject() { Name = "Test1", Code = "T"},
new MyObject() { Name = "Test2", Code = "Q"},
new MyObject() { Name = "Test2", Code = "T"},
new MyObject() { Name = "Test5", Code = "Q"}
};
I'm assuming you have an IEnumerable<T>, and in your example delegate, you would like c1 and c2 to be referring to two elements in this list?
I believe you could achieve this with a self join:
var distinctResults = from c1 in myList
join c2 in myList on <your equality conditions>
I found this as the easiest solution.
public static IEnumerable<TSource> DistinctBy<TSource, TKey>
(this IEnumerable<TSource> source, Func<TSource, TKey> keySelector)
{
return source.GroupBy(keySelector).Select(x => x.FirstOrDefault());
}
I am creating a Distinct extension method where I can pass in the criteria like the following.
persons.Distinct(p => p.Name);
I got the code from the web but I am having a hard time understanding the purpose of Func<T, TResult>. Also, when I say p => p.Name am I sending the String Name or am I sending the complete Person object? Here is the new Distinct method:
public static class ExtensionMethods
{
public static IEnumerable<T> Distinct<T>(
this IEnumerable<T> list, Func<T,object> checker)
{
return list.Distinct(new GenericComparer<T>(checker));
}
}
public class GenericComparer<T> : IEqualityComparer<T>
{
private Func<T, object> _checker;
public GenericComparer(Func<T,object> checker)
{
_checker = checker;
}
public bool Equals(T x, T y)
{
return _checker(x).Equals(_checker(y));
}
public int GetHashCode(T obj)
{
return _checker(obj).GetHashCode();
}
}
And here is the usage:
static void Main(string[] args)
{
var persons = new List<Person>()
{
new Person() { Id = 1, Name = "Mary"},
new Person() {Id = 2, Name="John"},
new Person() { Id = 3, Name = "Mary"}
};
var uniquePersons = persons.Distinct(p => p.Name);
foreach(var person in uniquePersons)
{
Console.WriteLine(person.Name);
}
}
When you do this:
persons.Distinct(p => p.Name);
You're basically creating a function on the fly (using lambda expressions), that looks like this:
string theFunction(Person p)
{
return p.Name;
}
This is a function that fits the signature of a Func<Person,String> delegate. The Distinct method can take a delegate (basically a function pointer) which it uses to determine whether or not an element is distinct - in your case, only unique strings (returned by the function above) will be considered "distinct" elements. This delegate is run on each element of your "persons" enumerable, and the results of those functions are used. It then creates a sequence (IEnumerable<Person>) from those elements.
Func<T, TResult>
defines a function that accepts one parameter (of type T) and returns an object (of type TResult).
In your case, if you want a function that takes a Person object and returns a string...you'd want
Func<Person, string>
which is the equivalent of:
string Function(Person p)
{
return p.Name;
}
You are getting back the distinct People, under the assumption that two People are the same if they have the same name
If you want a distinct set of names, you can use this:
IEnumerable<String> names = persons.Select(p => p.Name).Distinct();
I used a Select() to perform a calculation on each member of an array of structs and now want to have the member for which a certain attribute is minimal. I wanted to use something like Min() on the selected sequence, but I don't know how to return the full struct, rather than only the attribute that is minmal.
How about ordering by your "value" and taking the first entry (the minimum value):
Persons.OrderBy(p => p.Age).FirstOrDefault();
That is of course if you only want one item (which is what you state).
Alternatively:
from p in Persons
where p.Age == Persons.Select(p1 => p1.Age).Min()
select p;
Will get you all items with minimum value.
Sounds like you want to use MinBy from MoreLINQ:
public static TSource MinBy<TSource, TKey>(this IEnumerable<TSource> source,
Func<TSource, TKey> selector, IComparer<TKey> comparer)
{
source.ThrowIfNull("source");
selector.ThrowIfNull("selector");
comparer.ThrowIfNull("comparer");
using (IEnumerator<TSource> sourceIterator = source.GetEnumerator())
{
if (!sourceIterator.MoveNext())
{
throw new InvalidOperationException("Sequence was empty");
}
TSource min = sourceIterator.Current;
TKey minKey = selector(min);
while (sourceIterator.MoveNext())
{
TSource candidate = sourceIterator.Current;
TKey candidateProjected = selector(candidate);
if (comparer.Compare(candidateProjected, minKey) < 0)
{
min = candidate;
minKey = candidateProjected;
}
}
return min;
}
}
ThrowIfNull is defined as an extension method:
internal static void ThrowIfNull<T>(this T argument, string name)
where T : class
{
if (argument == null)
{
throw new ArgumentNullException(name);
}
}
If i understand correctly, i'd say: use delegates...
Here's an Example from Craig Murphy
public class Person
{
public int age;
public string name;
public Person(int age, string name)
{
this.age = age;
this.name = name;
}
}
// everyone under 25:
List<person> young = people.FindAll(delegate(Person p) { return p.age < 25; });
// sort your list:
people.Sort(delegate(Person p1, Person p2)
{ return p1.age.CompareTo(p2.age); });